Introduction and Background
The demand for creativity and innovation at the workplace is common for managers and business executives. Innovation and creativity are common tenets of the business strategies adopted by many corporations. Organizations also used innovation and creativity as the element through which they acquire a competitive advantage. Scholars such as Mann and Chan (2011, p.1) find that the concepts of innovation and creativity have gained enjoyed a lot of interest in the recent past. The interest in the concepts has resulted from a shift in how they are perceived.
Mann and Chan (2011, p.1) report that the concept of creativity has for a long time been perceived as a concept related with activities in the art domain. This implies that the concept of creativity was associated with the fields of sculpture, paintings, and other similar activities. On the other hand, the concept of innovation was associated with the domains of technological developments and scientific discoveries (Mann and Chan 2011, p.1). Unlike the images evoked by the concept of creativity, innovativeness evoked images related technologies and technological products, and new products that are the result of scientific development.
The separation in the perception of the two concepts resulted in an unequal treatment and perception of value. For instance, the concept of innovation, because of its association with new technologies that improve the production processes and the development of new products through scientific discoveries, has enjoyed an enviable link with economic productivity (Mann and Chan 2011, p.1). This perception of value resulted in government funding from public coffers to explore the concept and related activities. On the converse, the value seen in creativity was social in nature, and the only funding the concept attracted was through grants and donations (Mann and Chan 2011, p.1).
However, perceptions have changed of late. The two concepts are often thought of in togetherness. The concept of creativity has also been linked with economic development unlike in the past. This is evidenced by a report prepared by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reforms (2008, p.6) that highlighted the contribution of creativity on the British economy. Creativity was an employer of over two million people and contributed sixty billion pounds annually. Projections showed that in another decade, which translates to the year 2018, creativity will be the primary driver of the economies in many of the biggest cities in Britain (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reforms, 2008, p.6)
This background highlights the need to understand creativity and innovation as concept. The understanding should be based on the most basic level; the definition of the concepts. A meta-analysis of the perceptions of various scholars will help develop definitions of creativity and innovation. Among other possibilities, the definitions will help cast the two concepts in contrast with the past perceptions. In addition to deriving the definitions of creativity and innovativeness, the paper will also identify an organization that employs these concepts, provide a rationale for the choice, explain the core business activities of the organization, and illustrate the creativity and innovativeness of the organization.
Definition of Creativity
Franken (2007, p.396) is one of the scholars who have offered their perspective on creativity. Franken (2007, p.396) define creativity as the tendency in an individual towards the generation of recognition of ideas. In addition to the ideas, Franken (2007, p.396) also credits the generation or recognition of possibilities or the alternatives to the status quo to the concept of creativity. In this definition, the concept of creativity is seen as a solution to the existing problems, the need for entertainment, and the need to communicate with other people.
This take on creativity is not as revolutionary as the change in perceptions highlighted above. However, it is less tame compared to the earlier perceptions where creativity was seen as a concept common to the arts and where its value was at the social level at best. Creativity is seen as a source of solutions to prevailing problems both in the society and at the workplace. Players in the technical fields would rely on creativity as defined by Franken (2007, p.396) to look for new ideas and alternatives when they reach an impasse.
Weisberg (1993, p.4) is another author whose take on creativity is of interest. Weisberg (1993, p.4) argues that creativity entails the generation of novel products that have an inherent value. In expanding his perception, Weisberg (1993, p.4) finds that creativity also entails the actions through which the novel ideas and products are generated. This perception of creativity is only different from the one offered by Franken (2007, p.396) in the manner in which it is stated. The two authors highlight the generation of new ideas and the products that result from the ideas as a product of creativity.
However, Weisberg (1993, p.4) instill a conditions against which creativity is to be gauged. In his conception, Weisberg (1993, p.4) that the inherent value in a novel product is the criteria used to gauge the creativity in the process and the product. This means that having a novel product or idea is insufficient if the product or idea has no inherent value. This also means that generating novel ideas that have no inherent value is not regarded as creativity, and such a person is not regarded as creative. According to Weisberg (1993, p.4), creative ideas or products are the ones that meet the cognitive demands that are characteristic of the contexts and situations upon which the ideas are based.
Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p.28) also offered his perspective on what amounts to creativity. Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p.28) argues that creativity is not a reserve form ideas and products, but also actions. The threshold is that such ideas, acts, and products have to change the status quo. Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p.28) also argues that the current domains transform into new entities when creative products, acts, and ideas are generated.
However, the criterion advanced by Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p.28) against which the creativity of an idea, act, or product is vetted is not its novelty. Instead, Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p.28) ideas, acts, and products should enjoy the acceptance in the realms in which they aspire to inspire to bring change. This means that the novelty of an idea, act, or product is not sufficient if such ideas, acts, and products are not accepted and included.
The perspectives from the three authors above offer a basis upon which a definition of creativity can be derived. One of the common aspects in their different definitions is the aspect of novelty. This entails the generation of a new element. The other common element in the definitions is that creativity need not necessarily result in a product as was the case in the previous domains.
As Mann and Chan (2011, p.1) pointed out, the association between creativity and the art domain was because of its role in the production of artistic products such as paintings and sculptures. However, the scholars whose definitions are discussed above finding that ideas and actions, in addition to products are also common results of the creative process.
The other common aspect is the value of ideas, acts, or products. The creative process should generate ideas, acts, and products that have an inherent value. It is this value that leads to the change in the domain or status quo. It is also the recognition of the value that causes the ideas, acts, and products to be accepted. From these common aspects, one can derive a meaning of creativity. Creativity is the process through which one generates new ideas, products, and actions that have an inherent value that is extensively accepted over time, and one that leads to a positive improvement on the status quo.
Definition of Innovation
In similar fashion with the concept of creativity, various scholars have different perceptions of the concept of innovation. The meta-analysis of these perceptions can help determine the common aspects which are to be used in deriving a definition of innovation. Carlson & Wilmot (2006, p. 4) are some of the scholars who have published their perceptions on the concept of innovation.
Carlson & Wilmot (2006, p. 4) argue that innovation entails transforming an idea to generate value for both the enterprise and the customer. The value for the enterprise is generated by transforming the ideas into a product or service that when sold to the customers, brings in a sustainable stream of revenue (Carlson & Wilmot, 2006, p. 4). The value for the customer is generated by transforming the ideas into a product or service that meet the needs of the customer and adds value to their lives (Carlson & Wilmot, 2006, p. 4).
This is a common perceptions among other scholars. For instance, O’Sullivan & Dooley (2009, p. 5) perceive innovation to be the implementation of changes, irrespective of their magnitude, to not only the products and services, but also the processes through which the products and services are developed. The implementation of the changes is aimed at value addition for both the customer and organization.
The one element that is different between the definition by O’Sullivan & Dooley (2009, p. 5) and Carlson & Wilmot (2006, p. 4) is that the latter also highlights the innovation of the processes. This definition is more holistic because it recognizes that the way to improve the products and services is to also improve the process through which the products and services are developed.
McKinley, Latham, & Braun (2014, p. 91) offers a different definition of innovation. The scholars argue that an innovation refers to novel products, processes, and services that different from their precursors in a significant manner. This definition brings certain elements to light. For instance, the aspect of novelty is highlighted. The innovation proves leads to new things. The other important aspect, and one that mimics some of the arguments raised in the definition by O’Sullivan & Dooley (2009, p. 5) is that new processes and their architectures can also be the result of the innovation process.
The other aspect highlighted in this definition is that the product of the innovative process, irrespective of whether they are processes, process architectures, products and services, have to be significantly different from the precursors upon which they are based. This means that the fact that they are novel is not sufficient if they are similar to their precursors. This aspect emphasizes the fact that innovation leads to improvement instead of replication. The new product, service, or process has to be different when it is compared to the product, service, or process on which it was improving.
Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009, p. 1334) offers a definition of innovation that is directly related to the economic activities that characterize many businesses. The authors define innovation as he transformation of ideas by an organization through a process made of multiple stages to generate either new products, processes, and services or to improve on the existing products, processes, and services.
Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009, p. 1334) further argue that the intention of the organization behind adopting the innovation processes as described above is to attain a differentiation from their competitors, thereby giving them a competitive advantage. This definition highlights several elements. Firstly, the difference between the precursor and the improved product, process, or service is not the reserve of novelty.
While new products, processes, and services are fine results of the innovative process, the improvement of the existing products, processes, and services in a manner that makes them significantly different from each other also amounts to innovation. Secondly, the aim behind the application of innovation by organizations is to gain a competitive advantage through the differentiation of products, services, and processes. This links to some of the elements in the definitions by the other scholars highlighted above in that the differentiation of products, processes, and services and the resultant competitive advantage contribute to the revenue generation of the organization.
Creative and Innovative Organizations
There are many organizations that employ innovation as an element in their business level strategies. One of the companies that have a high regard for innovation and creativity as evidenced in their core business activities is Tesla Motors. This is a motor vehicle manufacture based in the United States that specializes in the development and manufacture of electric vehicles. The choice of the company for this discussion is based on its activities in the development of the electric vehicle. The company employs the open innovation in the development of electric vehicles.
One of the principles that characterize this approach is the understanding that all the intelligent people required for the development of electric vehicles. It is for this reason that the company forms partnerships with other partners in the automotive industry (Karamitsios, 2013, p.11). Tesla Motors also understands that while research and development by the other companies developing the electric vehicle will result in a significant value for the process, they also recognize that the claim to the value generated in the electric vehicle sector of the automotive industry can only be developed through internal research and development (Karamitsios, 2013, p.11).
Tesla Motors also understands that it does not have to control the research and development process in order to draw revenue and profits from it. It is for this reason that the company manufactures power trains using its patented technology and sells it to people who would be considered competitors (Karamitsios, 2013, p.11) as well as electric car batteries (Tellis, 2013, p.2023; Gross, 2013, p.60) Another element is that Tesla Motors emphasizes more the need to ensure a robust business model, even if it is to be exploited by the competitors, than gaining a large market share (Karamitsios, 2013, p.11).
Conclusion
The context of this paper illustrated a scenario in which creativity was perceived in lesser value when compared to innovation. Creativity was associated with the arts while innovation was likened to the fields of technology and science. One of the scholars cited in the discussions showed a change in tide where the appreciation of creativity increased and for the first time, it was perceived in the same value as innovation. This is exemplified through the similarities in the definitions of creativity and innovation from different authors. The use of creativity and innovation concurrently in the pursuit of economic development is exemplified by Tesla Motors. The company uses creativity and innovation effectively to drive the development of the electric vehicle. The principles of their approach to innovation exemplify the elements described in the definitions of both innovation and creativity.
References
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47: 1323-1339.
Carlson C. & Wilmot, W. 2006. Innovation: The five disciplines for creating what customers want. New York: Crown Business.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York. HarperCollins e-Books.
Franken, R. 2007. Human motivation. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Gross, C. M. (2013). Too good to fail: Creating marketplace value from the world's brightest minds. Cham: Springer.
Karamitsios, A. 2013. Open Innovation in EVs: A Case Study of Tesla Motors. [PDF]. Available at :< http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:635929/FULLTEXT01.pdf> [Accessed on 3 August 2016].
Mann, L. and Chan, J. 2011. Creativity and Innovation in Business and Beyond: Social Science Perspectives and Policy Implications. London. Routledge.
O’Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. (2009). Applying innovation. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tellis, G. J. (2013). Unrelenting innovation: How to create a culture for market dominance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weisberg, R. 1993. Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W.H. Freeman.
